סקר
כמה לומדי דף יומי יש במשפחתך הקרובה?






 

Steinsaltz

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Even absence of a vessel whose location is described with the side, prevents offerings from being brought. And Rabbi Ila said in the name of [11a] Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: And even correct placement, is necessary for offerings to be valid. According to this view, if the candelabrum, either of the two altars, the table, the curtain, or the basin is invalid or not in its proper location, sacrificial offerings are not accepted. All of the amora’im cited here apparently disagree with the opinion of the Rabbis cited in the baraita, who maintain that the only vessels that invalidate offerings are the basin and its base.

Rabbi Ḥanina says: There is no disagreement between these amora’im and the Rabbis. Here, the statements of the amora’im are with regard to the rites that are performed inside the Temple, such as bringing the incense, lighting the candelabrum, placing the shewbread on the table, and sprinkling blood on the curtain. The vessels located inside the Temple are essential for the validity of these rites. However, here, the statement of the Rabbis is with regard to the rites that are performed outside of the Sanctuary, i.e., in the courtyard, such as the sacrificing of most offerings. Only the absence of the basin or its base invalidates these rites.

§ We learned in the mishna that, according to Abba Shaul, the High Priests would pay for the ramp of the red heifer from their own funds. With regard to this issue, Rabbi Ḥanina said: There was great haughtiness among the High Priests, as they would spend more than sixty talents of gold on it. This expenditure was unnecessary, as the previous ramp of the heifer was still standing. But not one of the High Priests would take out his heifer on his fellow’s ramp. Rather, he would demolish it and build a new one from his own funds.

Rabbi Ulla raised an objection in the presence of Rabbi Mana: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Shimon HaTzaddik performed the rites of two red heifers, and the ramp on which he took out this one he did not use again to take out that other one? Is it possible for you to say Shimon HaTzaddik was haughty? What, then, is the reason that he constructed a new ramp? It is due to a higher standard that was established with regard to the ceremony of the red heifer; it is due to a higher level of honor [silsul] accorded to the ceremony of the red heifer.

It was taught in a baraita: Projections and walls would extend from the ramp from here and from there, i.e., on either side, in order that the priests would not peek out over the edge of the ramp and become ritually impure by leaning their bodies over a grave without any interposition.

§ We learned in the mishna that according to Rabbi Yishmael, the leftover remains of the chamber were used to purchase wine, oil, and fine flour. These items were sold to individuals who needed them for their private offerings, and the proceeds went to the Temple treasury. Whereas Rabbi Akiva says: One may not generate profit by selling consecrated property or by using funds set aside for the poor. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Akiva prohibited doing business with consecrated funds only when there was a risk of loss. However, if the seller of the wine, oil, or fine flour wanted to agree that any loss from the subsequent sale of these items would be his, while any profit gained would go to the Temple treasury of consecrated property, it is permitted. The potential profit or loss would result from fluctuations in the market price of these items.

An example like this can be found in an incident involving bar Zemina. Funds belonging to orphans were deposited with him. He came and asked Rabbi Mana if he was permitted to invest these funds. Rabbi Mana said to him: If you want to agree that any loss will be yours and any profit will belong to both of you to share, then it is permitted. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Adda had funds belonging to orphans deposited with him and he did so; he accepted all losses and split the profits with the orphans.

§ It was taught in the mishna that according to Rabbi Yishmael, the leftover produce was used to purchase the repletion of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle. This leftover produce discussed in the mishna is referring to the profits earned, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael cited earlier, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef explained the mishna as follows: The leftover produce mentioned by Rabbi Yishmael is a reference to his earlier statement that the profits from the sales of wine, oil, and flour went to the Temple treasury of consecrated property.

Regarding the term leftover libations mentioned by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ḥananya, the deputy High Priest, this is referring to the fourth se’a. If the treasurer of the Temple paid in advance for a year’s worth of wine, oil, and flour, and the price of these goods later rose, the seller was required to provide the goods at the original, lower price. The treasury then sold these items at the higher price to individuals who needed them for offerings. For example, if the treasurer paid for flour at the price of four se’a for one sela, and the price then rose to three se’a for one sela, the seller would have to provide four se’a for one sela. This fourth se’a was sold, and the profit from this sale was given to the Temple.

Rabbi Yoḥanan explained the mishna as follows: The leftover produce, this is referring to the fourth se’a. The leftover libations, this is referring to the overfill [beirutzin] of the substance when measured. When one sells a certain measure of wine, oil, or flour to the Temple treasury, he is required to fill the measuring vessel above the rim, so that he provides more than the exact measurement. However, when the Temple treasurer sells these products, he must be exact in the measurements. The difference between these two amounts is referred to in the mishna as the leftover libations.

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef not of the opinion that the Temple profits from the overfill? Why, then, does he omit any reference to it in his explanation of the mishna? Rabbi Ḥizkiya said: That which befalls the fourth se’a befalls the overfill as well. Both fall under the same category of leftover libations.

It works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef, which maintains that the leftover produce was sold for profit by the Temple treasury: One may not generate profit by selling consecrated property, and not even with funds set aside for the poor, and therefore the mishna concludes: Both this Sage and that Sage, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ḥananya, did not agree with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the leftover produce.

However, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, which maintains that the leftover produce is referring to the profit gained from the fourth se’a, it is difficult. Didn’t we learn in a mishna that if the treasurer paid for a product at the price of four units per sela, and at the time it was delivered the price had risen and stood at three units per sela, the seller must still provide the produce at the original price of four units per sela, leaving the Temple treasury with an extra unit from which to profit? Apparently, all agree that the treasury may profit in this manner. However, we learned in the mishna that this Sage and that Sage, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ḥananya, did not agree with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the leftover produce.

The Gemara answers: Everyone agrees that the fourth se’a may be sold on behalf of the Temple treasury. When the mishna says that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ḥananya did not agree with regard to the leftover produce, it means that they did not agree that the profits from the produce should be used for purchasing the repletion of the altar. However, they did agree that they may be used for purchasing sacred vessels.

It appears that all agree that profits from the overfill of the measures are used to purchase sacred vessels. The Gemara asks: Until here, it is reasonable to say that the overfill from communal offerings is used to purchase sacred vessels. However, is it possible to say that the sacred vessels could be purchased even with the overfill of individual offerings? Wouldn’t it turn out that the sacred vessels had come from an individual, which is not permitted?

The Gemara answers that it is like that which we learned in a baraita: In the case of a woman who made a tunic, one of the priestly vestments, for her son to wear while he serves in the Temple, the tunic is valid. However, since the priestly vestments must come from communal funds, the priest may only use his mother’s tunic in the Temple provided that she completely transfers ownership of the tunic to the community. Similarly, if the owner donates the overfill to the public, it is permissible to use the profit to purchase sacred vessels.

Until now, the discussion has concerned liquid overfill, e.g., wine or oil. Since the overfill was originally within the confines of the sacred vessel, it attained consecrated status. Is the same true even for dry overfill, such as fine flour, in which the overfill was piled on top of the already full vessel? If the overfill was never actually within the confines of the vessel, is it consecrated?

The Gemara answers: The halakha is in accordance with that which we learned in a mishna there (Menaḥot 79a): In the case of the libations, which include fine flour, that were sanctified in a sacred vessel and, subsequently, the offering they were meant to accompany is found to be disqualified, if there is another offering there that requires libations, they may be sacrificed with it. And if not, and they are left overnight, they become disqualified by being left overnight. Since the mishna in Menaḥot does not distinguish between liquid libations and fine flour, the Gemara understands that no distinction should be drawn with regard to the overfill; even dry overfill is consecrated and can be used for the purchase of sacred vessels.

Halakha 3 · MISHNA The leftover incense from one year could not be used the following year, as it had been purchased with the shekels collected for the previous year. What would be done with it in order to make it usable? The Temple treasurers would set aside an amount of it equal to the value of the wages of the artisans who worked in the Temple. They would then desacralize that incense by transferring its sanctity to the money owed to the artisans. They would then give the incense to the artisans as their wages. Finally, they would return and buy back the incense from the artisans with funds from the new collection of shekels. If the new funds come on time, i.e., by the beginning of Nisan, they purchase the incense with funds from the new collection of shekels. And if not, they may still purchase it from the old collection, and it is valid.

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that the leftover incense was desacralized with money that the Temple treasury owed the artisans. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it found that this process involves consecrated property being desacralized with consecrated property? The artisans were paid with money from the Temple treasury, which was also consecrated, yet consecrated property can be desacralized only by transferring its sanctity to unconsecrated property.

The Gemara answers that the incense was desacralized with this money after the money itself had been desacralized. How does the treasurer of the Temple appointed to this task do so? Rabbi Shimon bar Bisna said: He brings money from the treasury and desacralizes it onto the building that the artisans have constructed, which is not yet sanctified.

[11b] He then brings the incense and desacralizes it by transferring its sanctity onto the money. The Temple treasurers then give the incense to the artisans as their wages. Finally, they buy back the incense with the funds from the new collection, as taught in the mishna.

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
אדם סלומון
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר